Monday, 9 November 2015

Libertarianism Debunked


  1. When did L come to always mean, ‘pro-elite and anti-poor’? Come on now, there are some hearty detractors who do much better than this. And is the picture behind our confident and jolly but narked one, representing a solution - or a warning? (Or, a wish-list for Santa?).

    Brilliant converse-ad for a bunch I’d never seen. Cracking miss-struck review. First-look, these pesky L lover’s state, ‘we don’t have all the answers - but we’ve got a lot of ideas’. Well, Mr “have you seen them, well hopefully not” has told us, you want us ALL to “shut-up”. Mmmm? Someone’s on a porky (‘...pie’ - the interpretation for non-Brits).

    Ok I’m leaving it for now. “This arsehole...” he drips, and makes me squirm. This geezer and his crit, I’ll come back to. He probably has some fair points but like the smoozy background muzuk, I’m finding him hard to wanna swallow. The bloke on the first clip was trying to make a point. In jumps smarty, and like a flash, tells us what a few seconds more the L might have said himself. No need to wait. This one ‘debunked you again’ sir. Ha,ha - Gotcha. Da,da. Easy ain’t it?

    Anyway great post Aangirfan. Everyone is going to catch you out on this, as boyo keeps needing to drop, maybe it's a “propaganda trick” except I wonder... you doin’ some reverse psychology promotionals?

    There are arguments that challenge L ideals but motivational interviewing would instruct this lad - (I keep going for the age dig but it’s hard not struggle at his putting on the big-boy tones) - to modify his tack.

    Brit-truthers, in the main, hold special loathing for L’s but like I touched on the last L post - notice they never call out anarchy? Oh I know it’s... bound to be, a bit of an old cultural spec-job: Weardy, beardy, short-haired, ohhh could be crimbo, surley darn conservative - not nice. Locks and pins, thrash and squats (actually a total over-misrepresentation and dig-deeper clearly not A's-for real) - oh they all chumbawamba-fine.

    I tell you what I like about L's - their urgency at the gravity of our common struggle.

    Of course let us not get liberty loving (the tag for L), spreading their dangerous talk, because we're gonna end up killing the poor and pumping up an elite. All in a post-rev/transformation betrayal.

    Who has done more for us readers of such sites? L’s or the rest?

    Keep ya hat on


    1. The ruling elite have put in a lot of money to push libertarianism, and they usually like to see a return on their investments. They want people to give up their right to vote, and they have used propaganda to pretend that ordinary people would be freer in a state in which the ruling elite had all the power, where they would have no say anymore in how their country was run. .

  2. The Right used 'handbag' economics to fool everyone. "Handbag' because Margaret Thatcher said economies should be run like household budgets. And they said that markets forces meant people have to price themselves into jobs. This Right Wing propaganda worked on ordinary people, after all, when we go shopping we look for the best price, and unless shops are not cheap enough they don't get the sale.

    Union membership drastically fell as manufacturing got decimated, and it also further fell due to ending of the closed shop. In the newly privatised companies, and in companies in general, jobs got massively cut. Companies became lean and mean. To the average person all if this made sense, and the closed shop didn't seem fair.

    As wages plummeted, overtime rates were often replaced with flat rate extended hours, and as jobs got cut, local economies started to suffer because people just did not have enough spending money. Capitalism was destroying itself. The virtuous circle of good wages which means plenty of customers for businesses got broken.

    But the ruling elite made more money this way even though middle class conservative voters who run small businesses suffered. They thought that Tory deregulation, lower taxes, and the smashing of unions would make them richer, but they ended up losing customers. You see you can't run an economy like you run a household budget, or even a business. And in fact, capitalism only appears to work because of expanding population in the world, and in our country. Although people were maxed out with their mortgages and rents, with wages rock bottom, there was always plenty of new people that wanted a phone, or a TV, or car, etc.

    The one percent also wanted to give up on European and the US because they felt that wages were too high compared to the rest of the world, like China and India. They saw growing markets in those countries as places for increased sales to take up the slack in the West, and they felt that the West should be allowed to get poorer so they workers here could compete more with foreign workers.

    So this is what the Conservatives have to offer us. Work, work, work, with less and less for it. But their argument is, start up your own business if you don't like it. Be innovative, be clever, work hard, in other words the blame can be passed on to the rest of us. So if we are not cleverer enough, then that's the reason why we are so poor. Except as people work harder, and in tougher conditions, with scintillating mortgages or rents, millions more end up permanently on anti depressants, or simply just hate work. But if you spend the best part of your life at work, what a miserable life that is.

    Of course people can always be more innovative to earn more money, but this is really Right Wing propaganda. The real question is, why didn't the British people ever get a real choice at elections where they could vote for parties that would impose taxes on foreign made goods, and lower taxes on goods manufactured here? Why couldn't they vote for parties that would strengthen working people's power in the work place causing a virtuous circle, meaning better wages and therefore more customers for local businesses, and all businesses in general?

    The neoliberal period has increased stress on everyone, encouraged mass immigration to keep wages low and house prices sky high. This means massive mortgages or rents, and so people get forced to work 24/7 to make ends meet, while the banking class, the one percent, get to make a fortune out of it. They are traitors.

    The conservative neoliberals, whether New Labour, or otherwise, have ruined our country and maybe changed the face of it for the worse forever. But Modern Money Theory may eventually save us. The Conservatives hate it, and they don't want people to know about. It gives a significant role for government, which will be able to supply high quality public services with very low taxes. More on this later.

  3. Once again, well done Mark. I reckon much of the Brit anti-libertarian position is driven by mindless hoplophobia.

    And as for -

    "The ruling elite have put in a lot of money to push libertarianism, and they usually like to see a return on their investments. They want people to give up their right to vote, and they have used propaganda to pretend that ordinary people would be freer in a state in which the ruling elite had all the power, where they would have no say anymore in how their country was run."

    - this is more pure opinion masquerading as fact.

    As Mark says, 'urgency at the gravity of our common struggle' is far preferable to 1970s student union drivel.

    1. So libertarians don't want people to give up their right to vote? Explain yourself, please?

    2. Not sure we have a 'right to vote'. But if we do, I have no problems with it.

    3. Yes, this democracy is shit. The real government, the one above our elected one, is the one that really runs the show. Libertarians want to leave this unelected government in place. The one percent should have the right to rule over us without any interference from us below.

    4. "Libertarians want to leave this unelected government in place".

      Congratulations - you have created a strawman on stilts.